baldursgatefandomcom-20200223-history
User talk:GorionsWard
Welcome Hi, welcome to the ! Probably nobody has yet looked at your edit to the User:107.195.167.141 page, but someone will. Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! CompleCCity (talk) 19:56, September 2, 2019 (UTC) Attacks per Round Regarding attacks per round: I've moved it to all lower cases, so you can use it within text even with a lower case "a"; the old spelling redirects, all links adjusted, created APR (you can use that one, too), and it's implemented in infoboxes except , where's more work to be done. Just notifying you. -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cC -- 17:13, September 3, 2019 (UTC) Wiki Info About deletions: you need administrator to delete pages (or files – which also are 'pages'). If you want the 'link' to your profile deleted from that page, I'd rather delete the whole page instead (as mentioned, IP user profiles usually don't exist, only their contributions and – in some cases – a talk). But we can also keep it, which was staff's suggestion. Not my preference, however; so, as it seems you don't object, I'm going to delete it if there's no opposing reply from you within the next few days. In general, without special rights you can 'move' a page which automatically makes the former pagename a to the new one – choose "rename" under the "edit" button to do so. You can, however, not move a file without additional rights, so choose its name carefully before uploading. If you think something should be deleted (e.g. the redirect after moving a page due to a spelling mistake), place at the top of its page, and then an administrator will take care of it (earlier or later). The profile image you uploaded was automatically placed into the category:candidates for deletion because you didn't give a license. I know, it's from NWN, but would you mind to give a source that matches copyright laws? Else it will be deleted some day in the future. Talking about images – we prefer *.png and only use *.jpg for files that are too large (> 10 MB) to be uploaded. Judging by the name of your other upload, you extracted that one with Near Infinity which automatically converts to *.png – no need to put in extra work. By the way, you can't 'rename' or "upload a new version" using a different file format, neither can admins. I'm sort of a control freak, and do the every day I'm on (or here), so you might find me editing behind you. Usually I try to be explanatory in the edit summary about what I changed. If you ever feel haunted by me, can't agree with my changes or don't understand what I was doing or why, contact me. Looking forward to more good work of GorionsWard, best regards. -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cC -- 11:16, September 4, 2019 (UTC) A note about tags: And these blocks are done with -tags in a table (so that they don't use the whole page width), but this isn't listed in the same way as I was too dumb to get that managed … All three make a signature not a signature if placed around (or inside) it. �� Simply use four tildes (as also mentioned on top of the page, at least in source mode editing). -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cC -- 14:24, September 4, 2019 (UTC) Okay then, some NI tips: *When using "Find references to this file", I often check almost all boxes, to really get every instance; search goes longer, but you have a complete list. Don't check CHR, GAM and SAV, though, at least as long as you don't want to look in pregenerated character files or savegames. *There are creatures (and items, and spells, and …) that aren't referenced; for creatures, it appears to me that these often are some sort of template for the used ones, a base type (such as MIMIC01). Sometimes such things can count as cut content. Or they were imported from part I into II, but not used. *Creatures, items and spells can also be referenced by dialogs, (other) items and (other) spells. These will be checked when activating DLG, ITM and SPL for the search. *If BCS is enabled, NI will already look inside scripts. *The results of some searches show e.g. two scripts, with one of them showing also a "name" while the other doesn't list it. In these cases, the creature by the name XYZ has two (or more) files; the result without name is for the one you looked up, the result with name is one for the other creature file. *You can also search inside the script with "Find in this script only": useful if it's very long, because it shows you every instance together with the line number (and even jumps to it when opening from there). Use the creature/item/spell code (filename, without extension) in this case. *Although 2DA is an option for "Find references", this often does not work. You can then use the menu "Search\Text Search\2DA" and again fill in the filename without extension; also very useful for quick searches in DLG and BCS files (or the other options if needed). *INI files may also hold instances of creatures; I'd use "Search\Text Search\INI" for this, just to be sure. About areas: the articles (Areas (Baldur's Gate) and Areas (Baldur's Gate II)) unfortunately haven't links on them, and often the wiki article name is not the same as the description on them tells. If an article exists, it has good chances of holding the area code, so you could search the wiki for that code. Another source for possible area names is Baldur's Gate Wiki:Game source files/LUA/BGEE, the LUA file that holds all the codes and names for the EE travel cheat. But, again, wiki names don't have to match these, and several areas just don't exist here, yet. In the latter case, use (parts of) the LUA file name to list it as location if there's no better solution. -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cC -- 15:37, September 4, 2019 (UTC) Let me explain here in more detail why I've changed the Bone Fiend article and how: *created Bone Fiend (Hexxat's request) (and moved related information) – if the creature type is different, especially for such important things as undead, it may deserve its own article; also, less clutter on the original article *moved some fields (special, effects, etc.) *gave these fields the layout preferred by me *added references *tweaked some formatting *added SoD variant *rewrote lead to match content changes (and to eliminate all-upper-case creature codes – looks bad in an article's introduction, don't you think? �� ; also change in person – though widely spread here on the wiki, addressing the reader with "you" (and derivations) shouldn't be done) *formatting: e.g. italicized "Throne of Bhaal" as being a game's name, a title; de-italicized "Watcher's Keep" in "Locations" due to not being a title (usually the games shall be listed in this section, but in this specific case it makes indeed more sense to use a location name) *yeah, expanded, and more If you've questions or comments about the changes, feel free to ask! I have a question: what's this about "|other_names = for the Hexxat one? -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cC -- 11:31, September 6, 2019 (UTC) . A stub is always better than nothing. If I think, the pages still have the potential for an expansion of the gameplay section or a strategy/tactics one; and they lack some sort of background or lore completely. That was the reason. As I recently also showed to somebody else, Meiala, Sil and the Sirine Queen in my opinion are examples for not-stubs if it's about creatures – my vision (from some time ago) of a good and complete article in this category. However, if you think there's nothing more to tell, then remove that template again. Or don't add it on your new pages. If I do add it (or someone else), don't see it as belittling the article or your work, understand it as motivation for editors to add to and expand the article. :) "Stub" sometimes is a personal perception of an article: more "does it look" complete, rather than a check list. For that one, however, there should be an infobox (though the category:infobox needed isn't connected to stubs), a lead whith basic information about the topic, for characters some biography/background and for generic creatures a bit lore, perhaps involvement (use this instead of "Quest(s)") and optionally some gameplay hints (these don't always have to be about combat: some nice item to be pickpocketed serves as well). Perhaps a dialog section … If you have questions about game-technical stuff, ask right away (but be aware that knowing the answers might expand the potential work for you ;). Though I'm far from knowing all, as well. The IESDP is a good source of information for such things, and lists and explains e.g. file entries or opcodes. -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cC -- 14:34, September 6, 2019 (UTC) Saving Throws User:CompleCCity, I'm hoping you can help me out here... When I look at The Ravager's melee attacks in NI, I see entries like: I wasn't sure of how to document it, so I reviewed the Saving Throws page that says: That passage makes my head hurt a bit, but if I'm understanding it, it's saying that when a penalty is applied to the ST score (i.e., the target to meet or beat) then it's documented as a + and if it's applied to the resulting roll, then it's a -, right? Do you know which case the NI entries are? GorionsWard (talk) 20:33, September 6, 2019 (UTC) Heya, GorionsWard! Two things beforehand: #I'd appreciate it to not be displayed as "User:CompleCCity" ;) Simply use CompleCCity instead. And if your intention was to 'ping', to notify me: that doesn't work this way. Instead … #… if you're opening a thread, a new talk with me, the better place for this would have been my own talk page (about which I would have received a notification). Anyway … Not only your head … Near Infinity always uses the term "bonus", where a negative value would count as "penalty". The games use both terms, but with similar algebraic signs: "+" for bonuses, "-" for penalties. As most players/readers don't see the exact formula of a dice roll and refer to their character stats instead, they see that armor class, THAC0 and saving throws work the better the lower they are. Now, an ST of 10 vs. whatever +''' a certain item's "bonus" makes it – from a mathematical point of view – higher, thus worse – as opposed to what's implicated by the word "bonus". That was the reasoning behind the decision that the uses "-n bonus or +n penalty" instead. :My personal opinion on this is to use that notation in infoboxes only, where brevity of information is important, but to omit the signs in text passages or descriptions of mechanics; in those cases, I prefer "a bonus/penalty of X" and let the words explain the maths. NI focuses on the algebraic signs: a positive value (without sign) shows a real "bonus", while e.g. the "-" in "Save bonus: -6" (from the RAVAG01.itm\Item ability 0\Effect 4, Wing buffet) counts as a penalty. See my preference above: I'd go for "with a penalty of 6"; please, let me do the changes, as there's more to do after your latest edits (will document that somehow in the edit summary). By the way, this not only counts for saving throws, but also for the other stats mentioned. Did this answer your question? -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cC -- 09:41, September 7, 2019 (UTC) I considered posting the Saving Throws question to your talk page, but your page seemed too important for that, so i chickened out. :P I'll do so in the future. I completely agree with you about just using the terms bonus/penalty and omitting the +/-. GorionsWard (talk) 13:26, September 7, 2019 (UTC) Ravager Edits Okay, too many details for the summary (after all, I'd like to teach you something about wikiing ;) … :*first mentioning of PAGENAME is always (theoretically "always" ;) bold :*no class = no warrior – What was the idea behind adding it to this ? The "High Mastery"? :*fixed some double-spaces (ah, you're one of those people ;) :*fixed a typo :*some rewording to avoid or fix gender pronouns (it's an "it", no "he") :*some other rewording for a "better reading experience" (I think) :*more links :*minor factual fixes and additions :*it's good style to end bullet point lists with a semicolon (uhm …) :You're sure about the probabilities (the crossed-out words above are related to this question)? Never really have understood these calculations … -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cC -- 10:44, September 7, 2019 (UTC) Regarding your edits: * '''Warriors Category: I have no idea how I managed to do that; it certainly wasn't intentional. * Double Spacing: Ah, that was the standard when I learned keyboarding and I've done it for so many years, my fingers do it without asking my brain for permission. ;) * Bullets: Using semicolons seems quite formal. Unless that's the accepted writing style for the wiki, I'd prefer not to follow it (though I have no objection to you using them). And I was sure to have read that semicolon thing some time ago in Wikipedia's Manual of Style … either they have changed it or my memory serves me wrong. Okay, then do it as you want to do (as will I). Strategy sections Hi. What about trying to give Draconis#Strategy a more objective wording and not using the second person? Could you do that? Also, a strategy section should be written in a way so that any party constellation can benefit from it. What if the reader isn't able to set traps or cast a clone? -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cC -- 11:20, September 7, 2019 (UTC) I considered the party configuration, and thought maybe i should create a subheading like "Strategy 1" but my high school English teacher's voice butted in, saying i shouldn't have a 1 without a 2, so I decided that the next contributor could take care of that. What are your thoughts? Seems to be a logic-oriented voice. Was only a thought … perhaps one day it's me to make the effort of rewording it – but it'll be a long way for me up to Tethyr and the Throne of Bhaal (but you can be sure that I am able to lay traps and cast spells then – without playing an F/M/T) … :) -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cC -- 15:03, September 7, 2019 (UTC) I'm assuming most parties will have a high-level thief by the time they reach this battle AND either a mage that can cast Simulacrum or own Vhailor's Helm (given how useful clones are). Knowing how creative folks are, I suspect there are many other (possibly better) ways of dealing with him. GorionsWard (talk) 15:39, September 7, 2019 (UTC) Probabilities In regards to the probabilities, the Eff File Format in the documentation you linked me to earlier has this to say about it: :Note: The BG1 engine treats probability as a single word, effects are applied in the range 0-probability. Note: Other engines treat probability as two values, effects are applied in the range probability <= x <= probability. Note: Probability range is 0-99 That last note is a interesting because I see entries that mean 51<=x<=100, which should be equivalent to 51<=x<=99 which is only a 49% chance, right? I'm interpreting The Ravager's EFF entries as follows (ignoring small variations in the percentages): Those last 3 came from The Ravager's ranged weapon. I'm assuming each effect gets it's own roll, but if so, why bother partitioning the range of probabilities in this way? If there's only one roll, then there's a 100% chance that one of those 3 effects would happen (but not sure that's the case). GorionsWard (talk) 13:26, September 7, 2019 (UTC) Hrmph … much time has passed since school and university (and mathematics) – enlighten me, please. in the range probability <= x <= probability I guess, this could also be read as Probability 1 ≤ Result ≤ Probability 2 *If there's a chain of three variables starting with the lowest value (x≤y≤z), why is then Probability 1 the highest number? *If that's a range, not a formula, how are you (or is the engine) able to calculate something from it? Okay, apparently wrong approach. You seem to use differences from subtraction … *100-0=100 *100 (or 99)-66=33 *33-0=33 But then you also say *100-51=50 *65-33=33 No … I don't get it … And why should 51<=x<=100 be equivalent to 51<=x<=99? Please, explain your 'interpreter' to me. -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cC -- 14:48, September 7, 2019 (UTC) I think those notes mean Probability 2 <= Result <= Probability 1 (so just swapped the order you had above). know why they couldn't be bothered to add those numbers in their note! So, 33 <= result <= 65 which can also be written as * 33 <= results AND result <= 65, or * result >= 33 AND result <= 65 or * result is between 33 and 65, inclusively You asked, "And why should 51<=x<=100 be equivalent to 51<=x<=99?" The 3rd note in that documentation says the result is in the range of 0 to 99. Since the value 100 can never be obtained and the ranges are inclusive, there's no point in ever using the value 100 (right?). The expressions 0 <= x <= 100 and 0 <= x <= 99 should be equivalent. So: * The range 1 to 10 has 10 values, which we can calculate as 10-1+1. * The range 0..100 has 101 values, but since the upper bound can never be 100, it's really 0..99 (100 values) * The range 51..100 is really 51..99 which is only 49 values. That bugs me. I'm thinking that either: ** The IESDP documentation is wrong. ** The developers made a mistake, but it went unnoticed (or ignored) because it was only off by 1% GorionsWard (talk) 16:46, September 7, 2019 (UTC) I've just edited the Wand of Apprenti and added the chances for its three spells that read in NI as follows: *1 item ability with 3 effects *#Probability 1: 35 | Probability 2: 0 *#Probability 1: 70 | Probability 2: 36 *#Probability 1: 100 | Probability 2: 71 My interpretation: #35=35 (there's no 0%-chance; the range shouldn't be 0–99, as stated on IESDP, but 1–100 – in that case this would be 35-1+1) #70-36+1=35 #100-71+1=30 Which gives a fine, round 100% in total. Let's try to apply this to the ravager's items. The melee weapon has several 100:0 effects and three times 100:51. As this would read "100-51+1=50" (you were right), apparently each effect has this chance and not only one of them is chosen. (Else it would have to be only two effects or lower chances.) :Edit: No, this is wrong. The three 100:51 effects all come together at a 50%-chance – "There's a 50%-chance to be blown away, lay down to sleep and receive 1d8 crushing damage during this." The ranged weapon … ah, now it gets interesting. We have *1 effect with cold damage, 32:0 *3 effects related to the poison, all 65:33 *2 effects for stun, 100:66 That would make chances of 32% (cold), 33% (poison) and 35% (stun). I fear, the chances are in fact not completely equal, be it an oversight or intention. (Probably the former.) Would you agree? (And thanks for your explanation!) If you want to change the chances on the page, you could also add that "Golems and undead aren't affected by the poison." (That's the first effect.) -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cC -- 18:12, September 7, 2019 (UTC) :If it's indeed 0–99, then we would have: :*35:0 = 36 :*70:36 = 35 :*100:71 = 29 ::*100:51 = 49 ::*32:0 = 33 ::*65:33 = 33 ::*100:66 = 34 ::So, are the wand's chances more plausible (first row) or the ravager's effects? -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cC -- 18:29, September 7, 2019 (UTC) This is surprisingly more complex than I expected. :P I love your Wand of Apprenti example. It strongly implies that a single roll is made and applied to the entire effects list. To test this, i fought The Ravager again. For his ranged attacks I EITHER receive a message that he did cold damage to me OR that I had made a saving throw vs Death (his poison effect) OR a saving throw vs Spell (the stuf effect). I never saw evidence of two or more of these effects occurring at the same time. As best I can tell, the melee effects are concurrent, though I would encourage you to do some testing on your own (doesn't have to be against him) to verify that conclusion. It makes sense that those melee effects should be concurrent as it would give the impression that the wing buffer causes crushing damage as it hurls you across the room and knocks you unconscious. I am going to update his page accordingly. GorionsWard (talk) 13:44, September 8, 2019 (UTC) I've decided to go with the IESDP range of 0 – 99 for chances and adjusted the wand and the "50%" for the Ravager (I hate capitalized articles within a sentence, even if it's grammatically correct) – and currently I'm far from doing any testing in-game. 0 – 99, because I think it's much more plausible that the Ravager's ranged attacks have almost equal chances than the spells from that wand which show differences no matter which range is used (only point against this: why 49%?). I'm under the impression that we both have different ideas of how wording should be done on the wiki … ;) One last thing I'm curious about: all three (melee) effects come together – but will one or two single effects be avoided with an ST and the rest still applies? Or will one succesful save negate all three? As far as I understand game mechanics, the former. Well, I should see that I get into the games to be able to do some testing … -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cC -- 15:08, September 8, 2019 (UTC) Even though the ravager's melee attacks all save vs. breath, i only ever see one saving throw message in my combat log, so I'm guessing you get one save v. breath and that roll is then used to determine which effects will apply. As a result, I think you can be stunned w/o being crushed or buffetted, but you cannot be crushed without also being buffetted (but this is pure conjecture on my part). GorionsWard (talk) 15:19, September 8, 2019 (UTC) Armors … is not a valid word for this wiki's purposes (we don't have articles about e.g. tanks). You'll have to find a different pagename – what about using armor for this? -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cC -- 18:38, September 18, 2019 (UTC) I got an error when i tried renaming it... can you? If you need to go with a different name, that's fine with me. I was trying to mimic: Gems , Potions, Books, etc. GorionsWard (talk) 20:00, September 18, 2019 (UTC) In such cases I have to rely on dictionaries, being a non-native speaker (I mean, I was sure before, but looked it up another time now ;) … apparently, "armor" is almost always used as singular; the plural is mainly an AE thing, but seems to be related to the above mentioned different meaning of the word, but if it's about body protection, it's only "armor" (my dictionary tells me to use e.g. "armaments" if I really need a plural – but, no …). As it's work in progress, consider placing at the top of the soon to be moved page. And in the future the category:Armor will have the following subcategories (as far as I can tell at this point of time): *Category:Robes *Category:Leather armor *Category:Studded leather *Category:Chain mail *Category:Splint mail *Category:Plate mail *Category:Full plate *Category:Hide armor *Category:Scale mail You can use the terms "light", "medium" and "heavy armor" (for the sake of how it's handled in 3e), but the categories will go. The category:Shields will also be split into: *Category:Bucklers *Category:Large shields *Category:Medium shields *Category:Small shields Move follows directly, just wanted to get rid of the link to it … -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cC -- 22:36, September 18, 2019 (UTC) Thanks for renaming the page. I'm glad the light/med/heavy designations are going away. :) How will the armor be moved into their new categories, by the infobox or just manually assigned? If manually assigned, would you like me to take a crack at it? GorionsWard (talk) 12:28, September 19, 2019 (UTC) Would you like to me take a crack at moving the (I guess, this was misplaced here …) Glad? Why? That specific auto-categorization mechanism isn't yet implemented in the item infobox, but before you're adding the categories manually, set/add the |general = to the related item articles (if you really want; may as well be happening over time … Thanks for the offer, though!); I'll add the feature to the template tomorrow or the next day – and all is working automatically. (Same then later for shields.) -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cC -- 22:05, September 19, 2019 (UTC) I was having trouble correlating items to the old light/med/heavy categories by looking at the game descriptions or data files. You solved the mystery by explaining it's from 3e. Even so, my own preference (for what it's worth) would be to stick with nomenclature available in the game. I'm done with the first version of the Armor page. Please let me know if you think anything more needs to be done with it. As always, feel free to edit away, unless you spot a problem with a table; I created a spreadsheet with all the armor info that I used to generate the tables so it may be easier for me to correct the sheet instead of making significant edits to the table entries. I'll wait to take any further action on the individual armors until the info box has been updated. If you want me to update the individual armor pages, I will, just let me know. I included links to all the pages in my spreadsheet so it's not too hard to pull them up. GorionsWard (talk) 01:51, September 20, 2019 (UTC) This looks like it was a lot of (and needed!) work (even with a spreadsheet) – congratulations! (As this is run by a community, I suppose sooner or later your spreadsheet will be outdated anyway ;) Thoughts: *consistent capitalization (in most cases switching to lowercases) *adding a "base" column to the types' overview, so that the order is more clear *not sure I've completely understood the "Class Restrictions" table *less copy-paste content in "Special Abilities": to reduce content, but also to be consistent with bonus/penalty notation conventions *formatting tweaks (no detailed ideas, yet) I guess, I'm on the template later this day (it's 9 in the morning for me now). I will at least for some pieces implement changes myself, to see it's working correctly. 'til later. -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cC -- 07:25, September 20, 2019 (UTC) From your thoughts above: GorionsWard (talk) 17:09, September 20, 2019 (UTC) Still "editing" (off-line, more or less) the template (and the documentation) – takes me some more time than expected, because I'm implementing additional changes. C'mon, I'm not doing "some magic" …! ;) I especially like the non-tech-speak, lore-firendly description at "Physical Damage Protection"! For the "more supporting info", that table overall, and details of single entry abilities – I'll check that later, after having done the infobox changes. Also formatting (perhaps add base armor icons, rather than using their names, to reduce col-width; an icon column for the whole table would be good; think of reducing the table headers to 85% font-size, to spare some space; I don't know, yet, if I like that "Y" – in such cases I often prefer symbols, rather than letters (but how to tell about a penalty, then …); …). -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cC -- 09:20, September 21, 2019 (UTC) I just reworked the usability table. for completeness, the original table has an entry for every class and its kits but I think it created a "couldn't see for the forest for the trees" situation so I compressed it quite a bit. I still have the other version saved off. Do you like the new one better? GorionsWard (talk) 14:53, September 21, 2019 (UTC) Perhaps that was my issue – couldn't see the forest for the trees (or the armor for the armors … or the classes for the kits ;) Though I don't know if the new version is better. I will review the whole page later. As for your new categories: not sure, yet, if they are needed (or useful). In any case, they will be renamed to use lowercases (as usual for categories); though it's not possible to "rename" a category – a new one has to be created, all contained pages added to it (and removed from the old one), and then the old category deleted. Also, they may go into another subcategory, so to not have the base types together with material types under one parent category … also later, when I'm through with the infobox. -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cC -- 06:51, September 22, 2019 (UTC) Talk pages Hello, GorionsWard. I'd like to let you know that I'm no friend of removing threads from talk pages, even if it happens in the user namespace of the specific editor, in this case yours. There are additional reasons to it, but I think, the second paragraph under gives a basic overview. FYI, I've that kind of edit on my talk page. -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cC -- 14:51, September 23, 2019 (UTC) Thanks for letting me know. GorionsWard (talk) 16:20, September 23, 2019 (UTC) Moving on :Moved to User talk:CompleCCity#Moving on (by GorionsWard) -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cC -- 08:06, September 26, 2019 (UTC)